I've been reading over the report, and though I disagree with their use of 'mixed results' as a fully positive answer, I do agree, for the most part, with their recommendations. I think they'll go a long way towards helping things, if those recommendations are followed.

That's encouraging then. I haven't read the report--what are the highlights?

NEJM ran an article this week on the health risks of DADT in San Diego, which had few surprises (servicepeople lie about their STDs, seek healthcare off base or don't seek it; some healthcare workers won't take a sexual history from anyone now), but still was semi-interesting.

In an update on PTSD, I learned in this week's JAMA that it's been reported that the VA health system no longer requires even a PTSD-qualifying trauma for a diagnosis of PTSD. E.g., you only need to have feared that such an event might occur. For example, you might be been stationed somewhere where you COULD have had a firefight, or your truck COULD have been attacked by an IED.

Upsides:

More vets get care and or compensation for stress of service

Downsides:

Cost + encourages dependence; there is already disability seeking behavior in the military (as elsewhere), this just makes it much easier.

People getting service connected for PTSD without PTSD, vs,
Military now writing diagnostic criteria for medical illnesses

Apparently it's not true. Here's an excerpt:

"Supplementary information accompanying the rules change clarifies that the VA still endorses current psychiatric standards for whether a claimed stressor, documented or not, constitutes a qualifying traumatic event for PTSD and notes that 38 CFR 4.125 “requires that a diagnosis of a mental disorder conform to the DSM-IV in order to substantiate a claim.”7(p39845) On July 12, Secretary Eric Shinseki wrote in USA Today that the VA will not require corroboration of a PTSD stressor related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity, but that the stressful experience recalled by the veteran still must adequately support the PTSD diagnosis.8​"

The recommendations start with a call for senior leadership on down to send strongly worded guidance focusing on professionalism and respect. It points out that there are already standards of conduct in place, and means to enforce them, regardless of orientation. They did recommend revisiting each branch’s standards on things like public displays of affection.

They addressed chaplains specifically. Chaplains will not be required to do anything they were not already expected to do, nor are they expected to check their religious beliefs at the door (nor is anyone else), but they will be expected to provide the same services as they would for a straight member. Members won’t be expected to change their religious beliefs or moral views.

“Service members will not be required to change their personal views and religious beliefs; they must, however, continue to respect
and co-exist with others who may hold different views and beliefs.” The study pointed out that military members already work together regardless of their feelings on abortion, guns, the environment, etc.

Homosexuals would not be added as a group to the Military Equal Opportunity program’s protected demographics. The key goal here is to emphasize that they are or will be treated equally with everyone else, not receiving some kind of special advantage/protection/whatever.

It recommended that some benefits available to military dependents be member-directed, so that partners could be covered under some things, but not others. Housing is a touchy issue, because it touches on what is generally a marriage benefit. Their recommendations on that are to revisit the issue at another time.

It recommended that sexual orientation data not be collected or retained on service members.

It recommended repeal of the entire Article 125 of the UCMJ, which treats all acts of sodomy, heterosexual, homosexual, consensual,
or otherwise, as punishable conduct. It also recommended amending Article 120, to include UCMJ action against sex acts involving children.

It recommended changing the wording of the adultery regs to include all sex acts, not just intercourse. As it currently stands, a female military member having a consentual affair with a lesbian is not punishable under UCMJ.

It recommended against separate housing, barracks, or shower facilities for homosexual members, but recommended giving commanders leeway to address these issues as they arise.

“Accordingly, we recommend the Department of Defense expressly prohibit the designation of separate facilities based on sexual orientation, except that commanders retain the authority to adjudicate requests for accommodation of privacy concerns on an
individualized, case-by-case basis in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, and consistent with performance of mission. It should also be recognized that commanders already have the tools—from counseling, to non-judicial punishment, to
UCMJ prosecution—to deal with misbehavior in both living quarters and bathing situations, whether the person who engages in the misconduct is gay or straight.”

Under DOMA, joint-member assignments involving same-sex partners is not something the DoD can do at this time, according to the report.

It recommended that those previously expelled from the military for violating DADT be re-accessed in the same manner as anyone else (no preference). For some services (like the Air Force) this pretty much means not coming back in unless in a critical career field they were already trained in.

It recommended against allowing voluntary discharge based on objections to serving alongside homosexuals.

They estimated that the grand total for the changes necessary for repeal of DADT is somewhere in the vicinity of 30-40 million dollars.

"It recommended that some benefits available to military dependents be member-directed, so that partners could be covered under some things, but not others. Housing is a touchy issue, because it touches on what is generally a marriage benefit. Their recommendations on that are to revisit the issue at another time."

My feeling on these issues has always been that you shouldn't expect anything anyone else doesn't get. Dating someone a month? No housing. Marriage committment? Housing. I think the federal government needs to grow up on this one since their regulations are in the way.

As for the pricetag, I can't decide if that's a basically what the military pays each minute for combat operations, or whether it's a lot. It also makes me wonder what's been spent so far on studying, testifying, and prosecuting, never mind the investigations and loss of personel. Probably terrifying.

Do you know whether that figure includes possible benefits such as retention of staff?

In other news, I've read the survey data show relative disapproval in combat troops especially in the marines and army; as I mentioned earlier, no reason why the change has to be universal and sudden. The figures on how things went if they knew they were working with an LGB, however, were significantly better. Lastly, I heard the report also references some 80% dissatisfaction with racial integration before that change was made, which is also pretty interesting.

“My feeling on these issues has always been that you shouldn't expect anything anyone else doesn't get. Dating someone a month? No housing. Marriage committment? Housing. I think the federal government needs to grow up on this one since their regulations are in the way.”

Grow out of the Defense of Marriage Act, Ian? Really? I don’t think the words grow and government should ever appear in the same sentence. It’s a crying shame the Defense of Marriage Act didn’t demolish no-fault divorce.

“As for the pricetag, I can't decide if that's a basically what the military pays each minute for combat operations, or whether it's a lot. It also makes me wonder what's been spent so far on studying, testifying, and prosecuting, never mind the investigations and loss of personel. Probably terrifying.”

It’s pretty much chump change, except that it’s not currently budgeted by the Pentagon, so it would require an authorization from Congress. Otherwise it’d likely end up coming out of quality of life improvements, supply orders, etc.

“Do you know whether that figure includes possible benefits such as retention of staff?”

That’s why it went down from an original figure nearing 50 million.

“In other news, I've read the survey data show relative disapproval in combat troops especially in the marines and army; as I mentioned earlier, no reason why the change has to be universal and sudden. The figures on how things went if they knew they were working with an LGB, however, were significantly better.”

Combat arms is where we are likely to see things get ugly before they get better.

The Air Force Core Values guide us in all of our decisions as we riseto meet any challenge presented. These enduring values anchor and bindAirmen together each and every day. Any compromise diminishes thecharacter of our service.

With input from each of the military services, Congress is nowconsidering changes to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. As militarymen and women, the American people count on us to adhere to the laws ofthe land, and we now stand ready and able to follow any decisions made.The success of implementing any changes in policy rests on the shouldersof our Air Force senior leaders, commanders and the NCO corps. We'reconfident that as professional Airmen, we will let our Core Values guideus in meeting challenges resulting from any changes.

Integrity First Airmen must serve with the utmost integrity. We need to be honest inall things and have respect for ourselves and each other. It isnecessary that we act with integrity both in our professional lives aswell as our personal lives because our word is our bond.

Service Before Self All of us volunteered to serve our nation and put the needs of the AirForce before our own. No matter the issue or task, you have alwaysovercome challenges with conviction, confidence and professionalism.This time is no different. Serving in our Air Force is a higher calling.We commit to following our leaders and protect our wingmen every day.

Excellence in All We Do Excellence means respect for each other and value of individualcontributions. We need to understand that people depend on and trust usto give our very best. As others value our contributions, we mustrecognize the worth of fellow Airmen.

The Air Force Core Values are what we live by, and they will continueto guide our standards. I'm proud to serve alongside you in the world'sfinest Air Force. I know we can handle any challenge we are faced with.

Jason Rees wrote:So, I'm curious: how fast do you think the legal curtain is going to fall for other types of marriage between consenting adults, once we have homosexual marriage?

The slippery slope argument is fundamentally bogus. Drawing arbitrary lines and sticking to them is a basic part of human social life. Pretty much every rule and law is less absolute than it could be. It's absurd to say that moving where our line in the sand is means we're necessarily going to do away with other rules.

I mean heck, if we allow anything but minimally undressed missionary sex, how long will it be before we've legalized rape. After all, according to this guy once you loosen your mores there's nothing to stop your slide into total depravity. Basic logical fallacy here.

To address this specific example I'll point out three things. One is that homosexual sex is legal while incest is illegal. Therefore a marriage based on homosexuality isn't sanctioning anything else that's illegal, while a marriage based on incest would be sanctioning something else that's illegal.

Second, I'm not sure that adult incest happens without prior sexual abuse. There surely are exceptions in the annals (ahem) of human history, but for the most part people don't wake up one day at age 24 and think "man I'm totally going to get it on with my parents." If I'm right then the history of sexual abuse is a logical reason to forbid the marriage.

Finally, I think it's arguable that even in the absence of childhood sexual abuse, incest carries with it an inherently abusive element. That is, there's a victim of incest, while there is no victim of homosexuality.

This is kind of a non sequitor but I'm always happy to see one of those!

Looking at the post, the main argument is that this guy will get off if he defends his relationship as an acceptable variation like the gays. I'm in general agreement that the slippery slope thing does not hold here. Gay people have made progress under the law because of a gradual social realization that we're relatively common, we don't chose to be gay, and we can form happy, giving, productive relationships just like everyone else. Recently, a large study of lesbian relationships with children found a zero percent rate of child abuse--not bad.

Incestosexuals are not born. It's not an identity like straight, or gay; if you forbid it, you don't cut off a whole people from their natural bonds of affection. If there are happy father - daughter relationships out there they're vanishingly rare and completely unheard of. Almost all such relationships are inherently abusive. Many would argue they must be abusive because real relationships require consenting adults and has been pointed out, a lot of this starts with childhood. Consent impossible. Then, even if we're just talking adults, there's the power differential to worry about. Just as teachers and students can't have fully consenting affairs, family is off limits too. Even if there were to be a similar argument for incest, which there really isn't, but let's say that fraternal twins on a deserted island are raised by wolves and fall in love, or that people separated at birth reunite and fall in love not knowing 20 years later, there still would have to be a cultural change to expect any real progress in the SCOTUS. Why would they listen, in fact, to a case involving two people who are doing something 99.997% of the country believes is horrid? The only thing they have going for them is that they're adults (now--who knows what went on before). This is something that as a prosecutor I'm not sure I would pursue beyond ensuring that it WAS in fact "consensual" and started when both were adults. It's not exactly a threat to the public we need to pursue, you know?

But even then, there are REAL marriage limitations considerations. e.g., whereas all the limitations for gay marriage are made up (we want kids raised in married couples, so.... wait how is this related??) there are real problems with close relatives having babies, which is why we see gay marriage advancing all over the west and incest going nowhere at all. In short, no real reason to change the child protecting and future baby saving almost completely universal cultural taboo there.

That other McCain is forgettable... following that link out one finds he's railing on this previously obscure professor for calling Palin weak and self centered. Sleeping with your daughter is pretty crazy but not exactly weak and self centered. Then he tries to link this all to their being liberals and it's really interesting how he keeps that compartmentalized in his mind. Oh? Liberals have a sex scandal? It reflects their perversions! What about all those conservatives taking walks on the Appalachian, having their luggage lifted by rent boys, sleeping with male prostitutes and buying meth, seeking out the a-list prostitutes, meeting for sex in a rest room, flirting with teenage male clerks, and so on--even such that divorcing three times including when one was sick with cancer is not really news for a conservative moralist. Fact is people of all walks do freaky stuff. And the tighter they're wound with their morals and rules the harder they fly apart. HE can think this guy was projecting (onto Palin's quitting office?!) but Ted Haggard and company take the cake there.

I'm going to play contrary just for its own sake here. I think my friend Ian will understand.

Concerning the "slippery slope" argument... I think a much more compelling argument can be made for polygamy than for other alternatives. I happen not to think this is a good idea, but then that's me. In other cultures it's perfectly acceptable. In other times it was no big deal. And if anything, I think a better argument could be made for polygamist marriage than for gay marriage. In the former, you can procreate without outside intervention and there are no genetic issues. It's merely a matter of resources in the broad sense of the word.

Heck... I wouldn't mind having a second wife to clean up after my first. The extra fringe benefits would be fine as well.

And then... the women would want their equal treatment. Arguably a woman could keep more than one male satisfied easier than a male could demonstrate the Coolidge effect. You could imagine a scenario where a CEO female could easily support a couple of studmuffin house husbands. I'm just sayin...

I could think of a woman or two I wouldn't mine sharing if I could tap and have a child or two with.

I very nearly added a paragraph about how plural marriage would be a much more likely outcome than incestuous marriage. It is a much clearer case of expanding options to consenting adults.

"And if anything, I think a better argument could be made for polygamist marriage than for gay marriage. In the former, you can procreate without outside intervention and there are no genetic issues."

Do you mean better than INCESTUOUS marriage? Because there are very, very few genetic issues with gay marriage. Procreation, again, is obviously irrelevant with regard to the right to marry. It may be the stated primary objective when we think about a state meddling in such affairs, but that is really passe. Billions strong, I think we've proven that we can procreate without much encouragement. If we needed it, permitting/encouraging the marriage of any two consenting adults does the trick. The number of people marrying while infertile or disinterested in kids, or same sex, won't defeat the purpose. Further, barring such couples won't help with the objective, so "why you gotta be like dat?" It's just disapproval for no functional purpose.

If you want to defend marriage, require more serious commitment (no drunk Vegas weddings), make divorce much more difficult (even end no fault divorce), and increase the incentives to marry. No need to keep the gays out. If you want to encourage a bunch of people to consider serious child rearing as the main objective, so that we keep making Americans and our growth is constant, limit the benefits to those who have kids--the usual way, via adoption whether straight or gay, or via IVF if they so choose. The policy should be clearly related to the goal. Here's a snippet from prop 8 arguments:

Cooper repeated the main argument he made at the trial level, that the voters acted in a "rational basis" when they approved Prop 8 because they wanted to ensure procreation would occur between married heterosexual couples.

Reinhardt, however, interjected that "the argument is a good one for preventing divorce" but didn't see what it had to do with prohibiting same-sex marriage.

As for polygamy, I am actually quite sympathetic to the idea that people might want to live in a polyamorous type arrangement. Now, you can even go to poly summer camp, apparently with respectful and nice people:

There are a few hurdles for me. How does one handle the increasing complexity of legal entanglements? How are finances divided when 1 leaves two or two leave one or they all divide, and who gets the kids? There is also the issue of the history, and current practice, of abusive polygamy. Child marriages to psycho cultist patriarchs with a dozen wives are still a very real phenomenon. I think it'll take some time for polyamory to develop enough social momentum to overcome this issue, and any laws would have to avoid making the plight of cult victims any worse than they are. Lastly, we have the issue previously mentioned that polyamorous identities are not fundamental the way gay or lesbian ones are. People don't fall in love with two or more others as part of their basic identity. This will slow down the movement a bit in my mind.

Caveat: it's worth mentioning that while falling in love with multiple people isn't intrinsic to someone's identity, I think the capacity to love multiple people or at least to want some mate variety is more the norm than the monogamy model we're taught. See lengthy argument over "Sex at Dawn" I think over on Tough Issues.

If it wasn't for procreation, I never would marry. Same with most married heterosexual couples.

It's only "obvious" to you because you have a different concept of marriage than many heterosexuals. That's neither right nor wrong, Ian. But it is a fact.

IJ wrote:As for polygamy, I am actually quite sympathetic to the idea that people might want to live in a polyamorous type arrangement. Now, you can even go to poly summer camp, apparently with respectful and nice people:

There are a few hurdles for me. How does one handle the increasing complexity of legal entanglements?

I don't know.

But if I live in a new world and gays/lesbians get their civil unions (or whatever you want to call it) well...

What about a triad relationship? A heterosexual male enters a relationship with two bisexual females. All three love each other. How many licenses does take to make that union? What are the tax consequences? Can they get a single family health insurance policy?